5.  The applicant was born in 1981 and lives in Kharkiv.
6.  At the relevant time he was working as a shipping agent at a private company. According to the applicant, on 28 November 2005 R., the deputy director of the company, and L., the head of security there, decided to question the applicant about the disappearance of cash from one of the company’s shops. In the course of the argument the applicant was beaten up.
7.  On the same day, the applicant was taken to hospital and diagnosed with a closed traumatic head injury and numerous injuries to his body. The incident was reported to the police.
8.  On 2 December 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the law-enforcement authorities about the ill-treatment.
9.  On 7 December 2005 the police refused to open an investigation into the applicant’s allegations of ill-treatment, noting that the medical assessment of the applicant’s injuries had not been completed.
10.  On 26 December 2005 a forensic medical expert issued a report finding that on 28 November 2005 the applicant had sustained the following injuries: a closed traumatic head injury; bruises to his nose, eyes, lower jaw, upper lip and left ear; a cut to his right upper eyelid; an injury to the left side of his waist affecting the kidney; bruises to the left side of his groin and scrotum; and bruises to his limbs. The expert classified the injuries as minor.
11.  On 23 January 2006 the prosecutor quashed the decision of 7 December 2005 as unfounded and ordered further pre-investigation enquiries.
12.  The police adopted decisions refusing to open an investigation on 16 February, 2 March, 4 April 2006 for the reason that there had been no corpus delicti. The decisions were quashed by the supervising prosecutors as unsubstantiated and the police officers were given instructions to conduct further pre-investigation enquiries.
13.  On 21 May 2006 the police once again decided not to open an investigation considering that there had been no corpus delicti.
14.  On 14 June 2006 the Deputy Prosecutor of the Kharkiv Region quashed the decision of 21 May 2006 as unfounded. He noted that the file did not disprove the applicant’s consistent allegations that he had been beaten by R. and L. with a wooden bat and cut with a knife with the aim of making him confess to taking the cash in the shop. The prosecutor further found that the available evidence was sufficient for the institution of criminal proceedings against R. and L. under Article 127 § 1 of the Criminal Code (torture). He therefore opened proceedings and remitted the case to the police for an investigation. The police officer responsible for the previous decisions not to open an investigation was disciplined.
15.  In the course of investigation the authorities seized medical documentation in respect of the applicant, ordered a forensic medical examination, questioned the applicant and witnesses, and carried out a reconstruction of the events with the participation of a forensic medical expert. As a preventive measure, R. and L. were required to give a written undertaking not to abscond. They were questioned as suspects.
16.  On 12 June 2007 the police closed the investigation. According to their decision, the injuries sustained by the applicant in the course of the conflict with R. and L. were classified as minor and the specific elements of torture set out in Article 127 § 1 of the Criminal Code were not present. The police therefore recommended that the applicant bring a private prosecution against R. and L., according to Article 27 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
17.  On 28 September 2007 the supervising prosecutor reversed that decision as unfounded and remitted the case for further investigation. The prosecutor noted, inter alia, that confrontations between the applicant, the witnesses and R. and L. should have been carried out; another reconstruction of the events was also required. The prosecutor also pointed out that R. and L. were official persons at the company and no decision was taken whether it was appropriate to investigate the crimes of exceeding or abuse of office by them.
18.  Subsequently, the applicant complained to the authorities that the proceedings had been unreasonably delayed. He received the response that the investigation had been carried out properly and that most of the delay had been due to the forensic medical examination centre, which was heavily overloaded.
19.  As of 2 July 2012 the investigation was still pending. The parties did not comment on further proceedings in that case.